Is there a right to a personal hearing in a faceless appeal?

Yes, on request. Paragraph 12(2) of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 lets the appellant or his authorised representative request a personal hearing through the National Faceless Appeal Centre, and paragraph 12(3) says the Commissioner (Appeals) "shall allow the request" and communicate a date and time. The hearing is by video conferencing. The words "to the extent technologically feasible" appear in sub-paragraph (4), on the mode of hearing, and not in sub-paragraph (3). The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal held in Bank of India (30 June 2022) that there is "no question of any discretion" once a request is made.

Can the Commissioner (Appeals) dismiss a faceless appeal for non-prosecution?

Sections 250(6) and 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 require a written order stating the points for determination, the decision and the reasons, and do not mention dismissal for default. The Orissa High Court (31 March 2022) and the Calcutta High Court (7 February 2025) restored appeals dismissed for non-prosecution. The Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal usually restores them as one more opportunity, often on costs of Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000, and has refused relief where the default was unexplained and continued before the Tribunal.

Are appeals before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) covered by the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021?

No. Section 250(6B) authorises a scheme only for disposal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the 2021 Scheme defines an appeal as one filed under section 246A(1) or section 248. An appeal that lies to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 has its own scheme-making power in section 246(5) and its own instrument, the e-Appeals Scheme, 2023 (Notification No. 33/2023, 29 May 2023).

Which Tribunal Bench and High Court hear the further appeal from a faceless appellate order?

Paragraph 8(1) of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 sends the appeal to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the appellant. For the High Court, the Supreme Court held in ABC Papers (18 August 2022) that the appeal lies to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated, and the Delhi High Court applied that to a faceless assessment by the seat of the jurisdictional officer in Ramesh Kumar Bagri (2 April 2026). A Gujarat assessee goes to the Ahmedabad, Rajkot or Surat Bench and the Gujarat High Court.

Does the Income-tax Act, 2025 change the faceless appeal?

Not for appeals relating to tax years beginning before 1 April 2026, which remain under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 whenever filed. For tax year 2026-27 onwards, section 359(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 keep the right to be heard at the hearing and section 359(4) the reasoned order. Section 359 has no counterpart to section 250(6B) to (6D); the scheme-making power is in section 532, and section 536(2)(u) continues existing faceless schemes in force.

Home / Provisions

s.250(6B) to (6D) — Faceless appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)

The power to run first appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) through a faceless scheme, and the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 made under it, which requires a requested video hearing to be allowed.

Currently operative

Sub-sections (6B), (6C) and (6D) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2020 with effect from 1 April 2020. The scheme in force is the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 (Notification No. 139/2021, S.O. 5429(E), 28 December 2021), made in supersession of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020. They govern appeals for every tax year beginning before 1 April 2026, whenever filed. Section 359 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 has no counterpart to these sub-sections; the scheme-making power is section 532, and the 2021 Scheme continues in force under section 536(2)(u).

Income-tax Act, 1961

s.250(6B) to (6D)

Income-tax Act, 2025

No equivalent in s.359: general scheme power is s.532

In force from 1 April 2026, but s.536(2)(c) preserves the 1961 Act for tax years beginning before that date.

In short

Section 250(6B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 lets the Central Government notify a scheme "for the purposes of disposal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals)" by eliminating the interface between the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellant "to the extent technologically feasible", optimising resources, and introducing "an appellate system with dynamic jurisdiction". Sub-section (6C) lets it direct that provisions of the Act on the jurisdiction and procedure of such appeals shall not apply or shall apply with modifications; no direction could be issued after 31 March 2022, though a second proviso permits an existing direction to be amended. Sub-section (6D) requires the notifications to be laid before Parliament. The faceless amendments did not touch sub-sections (1) and (2), under which a day and place are fixed for the hearing and the appellant has "the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal". Under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 the appeal is assigned by the National Faceless Appeal Centre to one Commissioner (Appeals) and every communication passes through the Centre. Nobody is required to appear (paragraph 12(1)); the appellant may request a personal hearing (paragraph 12(2)); and the Commissioner (Appeals) "shall allow the request for personal hearing" (paragraph 12(3)), the hearing being by video conferencing "to the extent technologically feasible" (paragraph 12(4)). In the Income-tax Act, 2025 the hearing provisions are section 359(1) and (2); there is no counterpart to sub-sections (6B) to (6D), and the scheme-making power is the general one in section 532.

What the provision does

Authorises a faceless scheme for appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the modification of the Act's procedure to give effect to it. It does not itself alter the hearing under section 250(1) and (2); any change has to be found in the Scheme. It does not extend to an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), which has its own power in section 246(5) and its own instrument, the e-Appeals Scheme, 2023. It does not list the appeals covered; paragraph 3 of the Scheme leaves that to the Board. It does not relieve the Commissioner (Appeals) of the duty under section 250(6) to pass a written order stating the points for determination, the decision and the reasons, and nothing in it or in the Scheme mentions dismissal for default.

Threshold questions

Whether the appeal is one before the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246A or section 248, conducted through the National Faceless Appeal Centre
Whether a request for personal hearing under paragraph 12(2) of the Scheme was made through the Centre and is on record
Whether the notice for submissions was sent to the e-mail address given in Form 35 and allowed a reasonable time, and whether an extension was sought before it expired
Whether the appellate order states the points for determination, the decision and the reasons, as section 250(6) requires
Whether an additional ground or additional evidence was put in by separate application, with the reason for the omission or the clause of rule 46A(1) relied on
Whether any enhancement was preceded by a show cause notice under paragraph 5(1)(ix) of the Scheme and section 251(2)
Whether the further appeal is filed before the Tribunal Bench having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing Officer

In practice

The recurring disputes.

Whether an appellate order is bad for want of hearing when no request is on record

The appellant's case is that section 250(1) and (2) are mandatory in form and that paragraph 14 of the Scheme applies Chapter XX of the Act to faceless appeals save "as otherwise provided in this Scheme". On that argument paragraph 12 changes the medium of the hearing and removes any obligation to attend; it does not turn a statutory right into something to be applied for. In Rajadhani Fashions v. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. (Kerala High Court, 6 September 2024, para 4) an appellate order was set aside as "issued without affording an opportunity of personal hearing", and the order records no request. The Revenue's case is that paragraph 12(1) and (2) are the "otherwise provided": the default mode is written, and a video hearing must be asked for. Rajadhani Fashions does not construe the Scheme, and Sri Thayappa Balakrishna v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC & Ors. (Karnataka High Court, 1 April 2026, para 8) speaks only of the position "when the request is made for personal hearing". Bank of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai, 30 June 2022, para 9) and Atpadi Education Society's Employee Sahakari Path Mandal Limited v. ITO, Ward 5, Sangli (ITAT Pune, 15 October 2024, para 4.2), which hold the hearing mandatory, were both cases of a request on record. The firm's view is that the request is the trigger, and that an appellant who made none is on weak ground unless the notice for submissions was not served or gave unreasonably short time. Once a request is on record, sub-paragraph (3) leaves no discretion, and "technologically feasible" can excuse only a failed video link on a given day. The point is open.

Whether a faceless appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution

The appellant's case is that sections 250(6) and 251(1)(a) require a reasoned decision and do not mention dismissal for default. In Sri Ashok Kumar Shaw v. Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Bhubaneswar and others (Orissa High Court, 31 March 2022, para 6) the Division Bench held that the Commissioner (Appeals) "was thus obliged to have heard the appeal on merit", and in Vedansh Traders Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13/1, Kolkata (Calcutta High Court, 7 February 2025) the Division Bench held that the Commissioner (Appeals) "should decide the appeal petition on merits". Both concerned jurisdictional Commissioners (Appeals), but the reasoning rests on sections 250 and 251. The Revenue's side is that an appellant who ignores every notice is given relief only as an indulgence. Vedansh Traders restored the appeal on condition that no adjournment be sought. The Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal usually restores such appeals as one more opportunity, on costs (Govindji Budhaji Thakor v. ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad, 12 March 2025, para 10.1), without declaring the dismissal illegal, and in Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel v. ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Petlad (17 October 2025, para 5) it dismissed the second appeal in limine for "consistent and deliberate non-compliance". Whether such a dismissal is illegal, or only an occasion for one more opportunity, is where the High Court decisions and the Ahmedabad orders part.

Whether notices must go to the e-mail address given in Form 35

The appellant's case is that an address given in Form 35 is one "made available" to the authority within the Scheme's definition of registered e-mail address, and must be used. In Mr. Suresh Kumar Paruchuri v. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC & Ors. (Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, 12 June 2025, para 8) the appellate order was quashed where notices went to the petitioner's earlier e-mail address although Form 35 gave a new one; once the change "is within the knowledge of the department", it ought to have used the present address. The Revenue's case is paragraph 11(1) of the Scheme, under which placing an authenticated copy in the appellant's registered account is a mode of delivery by itself, the three modes being alternatives. In Vineet Singh Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT, Range-1, Bilaspur (ITAT Raipur, 28 June 2024, paras 6 and 9) a second appeal 371 days late was dismissed where the appellant had opted in Form 35 to receive communications by e-mail. How paragraph 11, section 282, rule 127 and the Form 35 option fit together has not been decided. The firm's view is that upload to the registered account is communication of the appellate order, so that the two months under section 253(3) are counted from the end of the month in which the order is uploaded, and that a notice of hearing e-mailed only to an address the appellant has replaced in Form 35 is not a fair opportunity, though where the notice was also placed in the registered account paragraph 11(1)(a) of the Scheme is against the appellant.

Whether a writ lies to compel disposal of a pending faceless appeal

Section 250(6A) says that the appellate authority, "where it is possible, may hear and decide" the appeal within one year from the end of the financial year in which it is filed, and attaches no consequence. The petitioner's case is that inaction is not an order, so no appeal lies against it, and that the sub-section states the period Parliament thought proper. The Bombay High Court fixed four months in Vodafone Idea Limited v. National Faceless Appeal Centre, NFAC, Delhi & Anr. (6 August 2024, para 5) and sixteen weeks in Katmandu Apparel Private Limited v. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & Ors. (16 September 2026, para 6(a)). The Revenue's case is that "where it is possible" and "may" give no right to a decision by a date, and that a court-fixed date moves one appellant ahead of others. In the first Bombay order an earlier direction had been disobeyed and in the second the facts were not disputed; neither is a contested ruling on the sub-section. In Sunil Dahyalal Modi v. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (Gujarat High Court, oral order of 28 March 2022) a petition seeking refund, expedition and stay was disposed of as "thoroughly misconceived". The firm's view is that the writ lies in principle, but that in Gujarat it needs a record that distinguishes that order. The point is open.